The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

"Kuffarphobia, not Islamophobia, is the real problem"

http://aussiemadness.com/2015/02/21/kuffarphobia-not-islamophobia-i...

discussion between Bill Warner & LibertyGB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrypJgRzYls

Bill Warner on Victims of Islam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idRjGC1qbB8

Views: 147

Replies to This Discussion

Another link:
http://aussiemadness.com/2014/08/14/islamophobia-vs-kafirphobia

(note use of term kafirphobia not kuffarphobia)

Drawing any image of  Mohammed (obscene or plain) is inciting violence.

Piss Christ, or the the mother of Jesus made up of segments of pornography is Art.

= denigration of any non-islamic religion is good, because those religions are kuffar

‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 8, 2015 @ 12:53 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments

Nytimes_hq[1]When it comes to rank hypocrisy and leftist-inspired double-standards, there’s nothing quite like the New York Times. Despite the reality two Islamist gunmen would have undoubtedly killed as many participants attending Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, TX,  as possible, the so-called paper of record chose to excoriate [2] those exercising their freedom of speech.

“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times editorial board condescendingly concedes. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”

“But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the board concludes.

For the pseudo-moralists who run the Times, such indignation is highly selective. In 1989, Arts Section contributor Michael Brenson was highly effusive when it came to defending [3] and praising artist Andres Serrano whose ostensible cutting-edge brilliance consisted of a photograph entitled “Piss Christ,” depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. He described the photo as a “religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze.” Moreover, Brenson was upset the about ensuing uproar over the original showing of the photograph. That unveiling took place at a group show underwritten by government grants and caused the National Endowment for the Arts to change its policy to one restricting endowments for projects the agency considered obscene. “People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect?” Brenson wondered. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.” (Italics mine.)

In 1998 the paper criticized [4] the withdrawal of playwright Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” from the Manhattan Theater Club, due to threats of violence. Corpus Christi was about [5] a gay Jesus, with a plot line that included the Christian Son of God performing a same-sex marriage, and Judas betraying him due to romantic jealousy. “What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America,” the paper stated. “The practitioners and beneficiaries of religious freedom attack the practitioners of artistic freedom–freedom of speech–without seeing that the freedoms they enjoy cannot be defended separately.”

One year later, Arts Section contributor Michael Kimmelman wondered [6] how artist Chris Ofili’s ”Holy Virgin Mary,’’ showing the mother of Christ replete with small cutouts of vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines, and a ball of dung representing one of her breasts, “could cause so much fuss.” “One of the casualties of political debates about art is always a complexity of interpretation, both sides needing to simplify the meaning of the work because contradictory connotations would undermine their arguments even though those contradictions make art art and not a political tract,” he explains. “People want a straight answer — is it good or bad? — which misses the point about how art functions, especially in a divisive context.”

In 2011 Theater Section reviewer Ben Brantley was especially delighted [7] by “The Book of Mormon,” a musical dedicated to the mockery of the Mormon religion. It contains a song entitled Hasa Diga Eebowai [8] sung by blighted Africans in a made up Ugandan language intended to translate into “F**k you, God, in the ass, mouth, and c**t!” Brantley addresses all the “doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up,” he gushes. “I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water.”

In short, the New York Times is very much in favor, if not downright ecstatic about, overt Christian-bashing. But not just Christians. Last year the paper was equally determined to defend [9] the “principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures” regarding the Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists — terrorists who shot the wheelchair-bound Jewish American and tossed him overboard. The Times insisted Met general manager Peter Gelb “should not have yielded to its critics” even as Gelb  himself  canceled live broadcast of the opera due to what he perceived as rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Times remained resolute about the importance of freedom. “Viewers may have different reactions and responses to such an ambitious and painfully contemporary work, but the arts can only be harmed by retreating from controversy,” the  editorial board asserted.

Nonetheless, the same board contends that Geller’s exercise of a far more benign expression of freedom in comparison to any of the aforementioned examples is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Sadly, the contemptible notion that Geller is engaged in what the Times and others define as hate speech resonates with a number of Americans. An Economist/YouGov Poll reveals [10] only a small plurality of Americans would be against a law criminalizing hate speech. Only 38 percent of Americans would oppose enacting such a law, while 36 percent would support it, with 26 percent of Americans undecided. When political affiliation enters the picture, the results are as follows: Independents, 53 percent opposed, 27 percent in favor and 20 percent are not sure. For Republicans its 49 percent opposed, 25 percent in favor and 26 percent unsure. Democrats are a different story. A 51 percent majority of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate” speech, while 21 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are unsure.

Perhaps the Times is playing to its core support group. Regardless, the editorial board remains oblivious to the reality they favor the very same “right” not to be offended that ostensibly animates not just Islamists, but supposedly all “offended” Muslims. The paper may differ with Islamists on how to respond to such offenses, choosing to excoriate Geller and company rather than kill them, but their insistence that some sort of anti-Constitutional line be drawn between “freedom” and “hate” is to share the same totalitarian ambitions that form the heart of Sharia Law.

And while that alignment may constitute an alliance of convenience, it is no accident. The Times would like nothing more than to crack down on America’s “bitter clingers.” Thus progressives will temporarily embrace Islamists in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. That is why the Times and other equally feckless [11] mainstream media outlets  are now wondering aloud [12] where the nonexistent  “fine line” between free speech ends and hate speech begins. And it is occurring even as these leftist provocateurs devote far more time to undercutting the First Amendment than they do chronicling the wholesale extermination of Christians or the oppression of gays and women in the Islamic world.

How softly do they trod? “If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” wonders [13] radio host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to aiding the agenda of the jihadists, there is no one the Left wouldn’t throw under the bus.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/offensive-art-and-th...

David Wood & Nabeel Qureshi, arrested in Michigan for trying to talk to muslims about christianity & islam.

https://youtu.be/XajZUmLoZZs?t=325

Note that D & N could debate religion for years without coming to blows.  But it is the STATE which adopts the kuffarphobic action of arresting them for trying to speak to muslims.  The state adopts the principle that if violence follows in a debate between muslims and kufaars, it is the kufaars fault.

If the state adopted an even-handed approach, then any publicly identifiable muslim in a non-muslim area of the US would be arrested.

Muslim says approvingly that Aisha was 9yo when Mo consummated the marriage, and there's no problem.

A unbeliever says disapprovingly that Aisha was 9yo when Mo consummated the marriage, and he's denounced as an islamophobic bigot.

This is kuffarphobia. Statement of disapproval of islamic values by unbelievers are to be stopped. Under islam unbelievers are only permitted to agree with the values of islam, they cannot criticise these values.

A muslim who was to disapprove of the actions of Mo would end up being a kuffar.

Subjugation to islam is islam.  Islam hates dissent from the values of islam. Islam is kuffarphobia.

If I'am accused of islamophobia, I can ask my accuser to show me the canonical books where my anti-islam beliefs are articulated.  They will fail, as there is no such book.

When challenged to show where are the canonical book(s) which articulate kuffarphobia, we point to the koran.

If I'am accused of islamophobia, I can ask my accuser to show me the canonical books where my anti-islam beliefs are articulated.  They will fail, as there is no such book.

There is a lot packet up in those 2 sentences.  I will try expand it, tho it is a bit messy.

When I allege Kuffarphobia in a Muslim or his apologist, I can say:
"The warrant for my belief is the rampant and blatant kuffarphobia in the Quran/Sira/Hadith; and you endorse, prescribe and protect those books".  

The Kuffarphobia that I allege, does not just mean 'critical of Kuffar' it means 'holding to a belief system that advocates abuse of, subjugation of, and violence towards the Kuffar'.

However, the Islamophobia (in me) that you allege, just means 'critical of Muslims', which is a circular argument.  You are asserting that I am critical of Muslims, because I am criticizing Muslims, whilst trying to imply that there is something bad about that.  If you wish to say that nobody should criticize Muslims, then you are a racist trying to allocate them special privileges which others do not have.

But if you assert that Islamophobia really does mean 'holding to a belief system that advocates abuse of, subjugation of, and violence towards the Kuffar', then you must show me where in my words I have said that, or which of my canonical texts contain that.

From The Religion of Islam by Maulana Mohammed Ali.

Note: no matter what evil a muslim does, he is still a muslim. And no matter what good a kafir does, he is always a kafir.  The only dividing line is if the person has every uttered the Shahada.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/11681616/I...

So, 13 drunken young adults, partying (dancing?) on a balcony & it collapses. And they are the victims?  And the NYT has to apologise for saying that this is part of a trend of bad behaviour by drunken (privileged) students having a fling/gap yah, before settling down to their well-paid jobs?

The victim narrative is overwhelming.  It is one of the fundamental things destroying the west from within.  

Yet it is incredibly difficult to get the egotists of the CJM to understand that this force has to be put to use by popularising the concept of kuffarphobia.  

Note: no matter what evil a muslim does, he is still a muslim. And no matter what good a kafir does, he is always a kafir.  The only dividing line is if the person has every uttered the Shahada.

This is unremarkable given that belief is an internal matter.  The Christian religion deals with this by allowing for the believer to be sent to hell for the unrepentant 'bad' they have done.  And many Christian churches believe that a good person can go to heaven even if that person is not a believer.  

For Islam the externals of belief are more important but the internal dimension is still there/valid.  the problem in comparing the two is asking what is 'bad'?  And the fact that in Islam belief in Islam is a ticket to paradise no matter what the person does (almost); though Allah is a bit arbitrary it seems.  For the jihadist however they go straight to their heavenly reward.

As I predicted months ago, the Sharia Watch "Draw Mohammed" event has been cancelled.  No venue would host it (as I predicted). And holding it in a public outdoor space would lead to rioting/terrorism/murder.

The kuffar is only allowed to exist within the boundaries delineated by islam. Sharia is enforced upon the kuffar in the UK.

Charlie Klendjian  resigns from Lawyers Secular Society over terrorism threats because of Draw Mohammed competition.

https://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/charlie-klen...

What did they expect? A few isolated individuals go up against 3 million people indoctrinated into a fascistic violent ideology.  The state supports the fascistic violent ideology.  That has been clear since the Rushdie Affair, where those who said they'd kill Rushdie went unpunished. Even worse - those threatening violence were given credibility & honours by the state.

How can people not understand: if you attempt to take ground you cannot hold, you end up losing?

The CJM is now down by 1 lawyer. After his (family's?) experience of this fear & threat, it's unlikely that Charlie will ever re-surface.  This is why the EDL's (initial) model worked so well: meet the threats & violence from a nameless mob with threats of violence from a nameless mob.

EDL were able to achieve what they did because the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. Identifiable individuals couldn't be picked off. This Draw Mohammed event was a bad idea from the start. It was a hill that could only be taken once sufficient groundwork had been laid.  it is galling when a naive nerd like me can see these things and warn against them, only to be ignored.

I predicted that EDL's foray into a political party would simply absorb time & money and then fail. Indeed, it appears that had damaging effects upon some of those behind that party, from which they have never recovered. It was a more disastrous venture than even my most dire predictions.  

The failure of this Draw Mohammed event will have emboldened muslims and encouraged them to be more violent in enforcing the kuffar to live under muslim rule. And it will have made the kuffar realise they are even more subjugated than they thought.

I pointed out to various people involved (not TR or AMW) that they were cowards, riding on the bravery of AMW. I told them that their anonymous claims to bravery were galling, and just proved how cowardly they were and how dire the situation was.  

Here's another prediction: Vive Charlie will fold within a year or two.  And within 10 years, no-one will remember Charlie Hebdo. Just like no-one remembers Pim Fortuyn.



Joe said:

Charlie Klendjian  resigns from Lawyers Secular Society over terrorism threats because of Draw Mohammed competition.

https://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/charlie-klen...

What did they expect? A few isolated individuals go up against 3 million people indoctrinated into a fascistic violent ideology.  The state supports the fascistic violent ideology.  That has been clear since the Rushdie Affair, where those who said they'd kill Rushdie went unpunished. Even worse - those threatening violence were given credibility & honours by the state.

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service